The principle of double effect is frequently cited in relation to abortion.

Quill has argued against the principle of double effect in bioethics.

The principle of double effect was first described by Thomas Aquinas over 700 years ago.

A related application of the principle of double effect is breastfeeding.

Thomas Aquinas' principle of double effect is a classic way of choosing between difficult alternatives.

They both revise in different manners and degrees the method of Principle of Double Effect to determine the morality of specific actions.

Critics say terminal sedation violates the principle of double effect because its intention is not just to relieve pain and let death happen, but actually to cause death.

He criticises the principle of double effect and the acts and omissions doctrine, the notion that there is a huge moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting them die.

Williams' ethical justification of euthanasia argued against the principle of double effect and for a utilitarian approach to the questions in medical ethics including both voluntary euthanasia and abortion.

Of note is the principle of double effect, formulated in the Summa, II-II, Q.64, art.7, which is a justification of homicide in self-defense.

When implantation prevention is unintentionally caused as a side effect of medical treatment, such pro-life groups do not consider the practice to be immoral, citing the bioethical principle of double effect.

Under the principle of double effect, the intended effect (relieving psychological suffering) would be considered allowable as long as any risks or negative effects (i.e., shortened survival) are unintended by the health care professional.

Through the work of twentieth century philosophers such as Elizabeth Anscombe (especially in her book Intention), Thomas's principle of double effect specifically and his theory of intentional activity generally have been influential.

For example, the principle of double effect, originated by Thomas Aquinas, holds that actions with both good and bad consequences are morally acceptable in specific circumstances, and the question is how this principle applies to vaccination.

The interruption of attempts at resuscitation, even when it causes the arrest of circulation, is not more than an indirect cause of the cessation of life, and we must apply in this case the principle of double effect.' "

In accordance with the principle of double effect, excommunication is not incurred in the rare cases of indirect abortion, such as when, in an ectopic pregnancy, the fallopian tube is removed, or in cases of ovarian cancer.

G. E. M. Anscombe objects to consequentialism on the grounds that it does not provide guidance in what one ought to do because there is no distinction between consequences that are foreseen and those that are intended (see Principle of double effect).

The first was establishing the principle of double effect that if a doctor "gave treatment to a seriously ill patient with the aim of relieving pain or distress, as a result of which that person's life was inadvertently shortened, the doctor was not guilty of murder."

Allowing a terminally ill person to die, using painkillers that may shorten their life, or refusing extraordinary treatment to the terminally ill such as chemotherapy or radiation, are considered morally acceptable and not a violation of the fifth commandment, in accordance with the principle of double effect.

In 1975, Rachels wrote "Active and Passive Euthanasia", which originally appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, and argued that the distinction so important in the law between killing and letting die (often based on the principle of double effect) has no rational basis.